Our company recently received a Letter from License Compliance Services, Inc. on behalf of 500px inc. stating that our website used 500px represented imagery without our possessing a valid license. They gave us 10 days, a tiny screenshot of our archived blog (using a thumbnail of about 1/6 of an image), and a demand for over $700. The currency of payment is unclear, since 500px and our own company are Canadian, and LCS has a Seattle address (and is quoting US Copyright code). The follow up paper copy of the same extortion letter was sent from a Canadian address. By the time we received the first email, the image and blog had long since been moved to archives, but we immediately removed it from our web-hosting service altogether.
Since the image in question was posted with an 18 month old blog by a former employee, I needed to first familiarize myself with the image and how it was used/obtained. In the case that it was infringement, I assumed that we would pay a negotiated sum and skulk away. What I discovered instead is that the image appears to have been stolen from the actual owner of the copyright and sold on the 500px website. In addition to offering this photo for sale, LCS and 500px are also seeking “damages” for the unauthorized use of the image. Since it is a very common image on the web and distribution is allowed for fair use, I assume that they have sent extortion letters to numerous websites demanding payment, and I imagine that some of them have paid. There is SIGNIFICANT evidence to suggest that the copyright belongs to an independent photographer who is offering the image for free under certain use conditions on a commons website. It is unlikely, but possible, that LCS and 500px were unaware of this at the time of their first letter. I have done my best to ensure they are aware of it now in the hopes that the reasonable course of action will be to immediately take down the photo(s) in question and close the case. Disregarding this information, they have continued to send threatening emails and letters demanding payment. I believe this knowledge and action might show that they have crossed a legal line from innocent infringement (unknowingly attempting to profit from a stolen image) to deliberate infringement with intent to profit.
I don’t want to give away too many specifics or name any real names at this point, since I’m not a lawyer or tech-expert, and I want to be prepared in the event that LCS is ignorant or arrogant enough to pursue this in a legal context. I’m hoping that by sharing what I have found, I might contribute in some small part to the undoing of this bullying and extortion.
I will give an outline of the facts as best I can. The names of people and places have been changed, since I know that the trolls also lurk on this forum:
- 2006: a photographer, named Probably Original Poster (POP) takes a lovely photograph of an unusual rock (PHOTO)
- 2007: POP adds PHOTO to Wikimedia Commons, along with a lot of information on how PHOTO was taken, where the unusual rock is located (his home state), and copyright and usage licensing information. It turns out that POP is an generous contributor to the Commons site, and is one of the single largest contributors to Wikipedia. POP actually has created entries for thousands of topics in Wikipedia, and often takes photos to illustrate them. He is mentioned in a passage of a book citing him as a key figure in the rapid growth of Wikipedia during the last 15 years.
- 2007: PHOTO is used as the main photo for the Wikipedia entry for the unusual rock. PHOTO is nominated Picture of the Day for Wikipedia in Sept 2007, and it is also a finalist for Photo of the Year. PHOTO is very clearly credited to POP.
- 2008-2014: Use of PHOTO is widespread, since it has been shared by POP, and is intended for fair use (information websites, textbooks, wallpaper etc.). It becomes a part of hundreds of travel and tourism websites for unusual rock and unusual rock’s park and state. It also is used in other ways, perhaps not so legitimate, for websites as a background or pretty picture. In most cases, credit is still given to POP or not given at all.
- 2014: a former employee (FE) of our company uses a portion of PHOTO as a blog header, crediting and noting the copyright to POP. PHOTO was obtained from the Commons or a website offering free images (history is unclear on this matter, as FE was did not document this). If any infringement took place it appears that it was to POP’s copyright. It was also partial and unintentional since FE did attempt to give credit (but perhaps should have included the full license text). The blog post receives no traffic and then scrolls off the website as it is replaced by other posts.
- 2014: a “photographer” named Carbon Copy (CC) posts PHOTO to 500px along with about 20 other images in a single day (all taken by different cameras at different times in vastly different locations around the globe). PHOTO, and the other images, are offered for sale. CC posts no history, location or pedigree. CC also never adds a single photo after this one date. A very quick Google image search finds about half of these photos are either stolen, or very, very much in doubt in terms of ownership. A couple of CC’s photos actually still have a watermark from other photographers. CC has no identity beyond 500px.com at all. Many of the other photographers, including POP, have a significant web presence and display copyright for the images CC is selling. Some of the other photographs are actually credited to other photographers on the 500px website itself.
- 2015: Extortion letter from LCS/500px. The claim is that 500px owns the rights to CC’s photos, so they are entitled to damages from those who have used them, however unwittingly. If their bot picked up our past use of a portion of the PHOTO, how did they not notice that CC’s photo was actually POP’s? I can not be 100% sure that POP has the legitimate copyright, but it seems like there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that CC is the infringer. Does this make LCS/500px complicit in this illegal act? I’m sure that when CC posted PHOTO and all the other pilfered images, he had to agree to a lot of fine print that waives 500px from the responsibility of determining the true ownership. However, does that argument hold water when even the tiniest bit of due-dilligence would reveal that the ownership of the PHOTO and CC's other "images" is in very serious doubt? I presented LCS with information regarding PHOTO and POP, and expected to see CC’s PHOTO immediately removed from the 500px website. They appear to be, after all, overtly breaking the very laws that they are quoting in their extortion letters. Alternatively, if POP has actually set up a nine-year-long bait scam to claim PHOTO as his own - just so he can give it away for free, I would expect that LCS should have PHOTO removed from the Commons. Neither of these things has happened.
- Three weeks ago: A representative from LCS replied to my email. Let's call her Blamantha Slemons (BS). BS's retort was that POP does not own the copyright to PHOTO because CC does. Full stop. Her proof of this is a link to CC's photo gallery on 500px. Yup. Super proofy. BS also quoted some nice Terms of Service for Flickr (?) and the Commons stating that it is the responsibility of the user to verify the copyright status. This was an odd statement given that the copyright for PHOTO seems very clear, and a typical user would determine that it belonged to POP long before CC showed up one day to try and shill it. I immediately sent back a reply that if the possession of PHOTO was truly in doubt, then it should be taken up with the parties directly responsible. I also pointed out the ownership discrepancies with several of the other images claimed to be owned by CC. They can not prove ownership, not only of PHOTO, but several other images they are selling as well.
- Last week: I received a letter threatening escalation from LCS. It was generic and did not address my last correspondence at all. From this I assume there are several scenarios. None of these make LCS look good:
1. They are ignorant and not paying attention. Despite the information I have provided, they do not realize that they are selling and extorting money for potentially stolen images. They are somehow unaware that they may be breaking the very laws they are "enforcing" outside of the legal system. In their own wording, even unintentional infringement is still a crime.
2. They are fully aware that they are breaking these laws, and are arrogant enough to believe that nothing will come of this.
3. They are in on the whole deceptive plan to make images appear clearly copyrighted to someone else, then extort money from those who unwittingly use them. This would be a really elaborate scheme, and would seemingly be a significant (and fraudulent?) step up from allowing uncredited images to be shared on free-image websites. If you are going to jump out from behind a bush and yell "GOCTHA!!!", I don't think you can spend nine years growing the bush and then directing people to stand next to it.
I'm sorry for the very long post. This has been bothering me quite a lot. Our new plan is to just go dark and wait it out, since a logical response has no effect whatsoever. I would also greatly appreciate any reassurance, advice or comments that anyone in the forum might have.
Topic: Has LCS Crossed a Legal Line? (Read 3553 times)